Hi Tammo,

I drafted the proposal.This is the link for Google doc. It would be great
if you can give a feedback on this.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H7cLekwUr2juNX2DFzgqq5FEkHZPDtFkHKz0aLWiB2k/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you.

On 26 March 2015 at 21:35, Tammo van Lessen <tvanles...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sudharma,
>
> yes. Regarding 3) it is in particular the isolation of process instances.
> There must be a load balancer in front of ODE, and the lock is to avoid the
> case where node one is processing a process instance and node two receives
> a message for the same process instance and starts processing as well.
>
> Looking forward to your proposal.
>
> Thanks,
>   Tammo
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:52 PM, sudharma subasinghe <
> suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tammo,
> >
> > Thank you for reply. I went through the thread in jira which is referring
> > this issue. I extracted few ideas from there. As I think implementation
> > should contain following points.
> >
> > 1) Support cluster awareness in deploying phase
> > 2) Improve the ODE's scheduler
> > 3) Implement a distributed lock to avoid concurrent modification in
> cluster
> >
> > I am drafting a proposal including those points. I'll send it for your
> > review soon.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > On 26 March 2015 at 18:49, Tammo van Lessen <tvanles...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > ODE is originally designed to be run in a clustered fashion, however it
> > has
> > > never been implemented in ODE. The goal would be to integrate a
> > clustering
> > > framework like Hazelcast in order to add this functionality.
> > >
> > > The main integration points are the ODE scheduler and the process
> store.
> > > The scheduler is already capable to handle several nodes but needs the
> > > integration to know if cluster nodes are still present. The API
> currently
> > > anticipates a heart beat model, with Hazelcast this might need to be
> > > changed or adapted. The other part is the process store, which
> implements
> > > the (hot-)deployment that is filesystem based. Under the assumption
> that
> > a
> > > distributed filesystem is used, the cluster implementation needs to
> take
> > > care that only one single node (the master) is taking care of new
> > > deployments, just in order to avoid multiple nodes doing the same thing
> > in
> > > parallel. Then there is also one lock that needs to be distributed,
> > either
> > > using database locks or a distributed lock (e.g. from hazelcast).
> > >
> > > Addtional requirements would be the integration with our config file so
> > > that a cluster (and its nodes) can be configured as well as some basic
> > > monitoring. Also a basic test environment, e.g. based on Docker would
> be
> > > very good to verify the approach.
> > >
> > > So I guess the steps would be: 1. Research to find a suitable cluster
> > > framework (I think Hazelcast would be a good fit) and getting familiar
> > with
> > > ODE and this framework. 2. Identify the integration points in ODE. 3.
> > Based
> > > on the chosen framework, develop approaches to serve these integration
> > > points (We need leader election for the store, a distributed lock for
> the
> > > runtime and the information whether nodes are joining or leaving the
> > > cluster to be able to reschedule tasks from lost nodes) along with a
> > > distributed setup to test. 4. Develop and test, 5. Test.
> > >
> > > For questions regarding the integration points please feel free to ask
> > > here, I can give you some pointers.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >   Tammo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:03 AM, sudharma subasinghe <
> > > suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am interested in this project as I have enough basic knowledge
> about
> > > > apache axis2, apache ODE, WS-BPEL and I am currently studying those.
> > So I
> > > > appreciate if you can provide more details on project.
> > > > Thank you
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de
>

Reply via email to